The cost of civil disobedience?

He does that all the time - he's just a simple wind up merchant with too much time on his hands. Don't bother replying to him and he'll pack it in eventually.

 

Is that why you're not replying about who owns the Daily Mail and if you are actually Irish?

 

And I was right.

 

To be fair to chippie244, his educated guess was right this time.

 

What? It’s not the spacing. If each x axis tick is 100,000 years and roughly 100 pixels then each pixel is about a thousand years. You need to go to the raw data to see that there is no comparable rise in the last 800 kiloyears.

 

Don't try talking sense to jj, it's a pointless exercise

 

We have a thing in English law, about being innocent until proven guilty.
Of course, many are innocent but are found guilty.

Then of course we have supposedly punishment to fit the crime.
So if you punish someone, is right to effectively continue punishing them afterwards?

A lot of benefits are means tested.
People only qualify for them because they don’t have enough to live on.
Would it be right to say someone needs x amount to live on, then take some of that away?

 

I guess one solution for punishment of someone who is on benefits is to give them some other way to pay back the costs they have caused.
Say a part time job suitable to their physical, mental and general abilities .
If they can protest, they can also manage to do some sort of work.

 

Cool.
Protest about the lack of work and get punished by being made to go to work.
That’s a bit like that idea to make people work for benefits.
Sack a nurse who’s on £14 grand a year, then get them to work as a nurse to get £6 grand a year in Job Seekers Allowance.

 

True! It will be a win win situation.

And the work does not have to be too difficult. No breaking of rocks with picks while legs chained together.
Councils claim they have no money to clean litter etc, so there is something to do, if intellect is low.

 

I have a feeling it would be illegal.
If someone was forced to work to obtain benefit, then that benefit would have to be equal to the minimum wage.
In other words, the person would be employed.

 

I meant that a person on benefits could pay off what a court fines them by given a job punishment.
That way their benefits will not be diminished.

On the different subject of being given work instead of, or in addition to, or to top up benefits, - yes, it would have to be minimum wage or above to be fair and legal.
I see nothing wrong with this idea and have wondered for years why this is not done, but could be EU rules.

 

Surely criminals leaving the prison system are continued to be punished because employers don't usually offer criminals jobs then? ( unless they're MP's )

 

We already have that Heat, it's called community service ( or as the crims call it, a joke)

 

Grow up.

 

Yep they can always post on here supporting Remain.

 

Explain climate change to me again jj or the Iraq war

 

Explain the result of the referendum chip ( without resorting to moaning or abuse please)

 

It’s not done because it wouldn’t be right.
You don’t want to pay someone a decent wage to do a job, why should they then be forced to do the job?

 

Seriously ?? Was it my EU comment?
Is that all you can say to what is a serious grown up debate?
We all know that crime that involves costs to the government, or third parties, rarely pays any money towards the crime.

And people on benefits should be given jobs for benefit money (providing it is to at least minimum wage level).
What human right would be broken to do this?
EU or U.K. laws, I don’t care. It is wrong, and unfair to those who are not on benefits but barely able to live on earnings, to be discriminated against.